Pet Sales
Displaying 51 - 60 of 172
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| FAQ: Buying a sick dog in California | This FAQ is based on a reader question concerning the sale of a sick pet in California. |
| GA - Breeding - Chapter 40-13-13. Animal Protection | There regulations set out the requirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state. |
| IA - Pet Shop - Chapter 162. Care of Animals in Commercial Establishments. | The purpose of this chapter is to insure that all dogs and cats handled by boarding kennels, commercial kennels, commercial breeders, dealers, and public auctions are provided with humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals. |
| IL - Pet Shops - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | This section comprises Illinois' Animal Welfare Act. The Act is primarily aimed at regulating commercial pet dealers, such as kennels, breeders, and retail pet shops. The provisions include restrictions on the age at which both dogs and cats can be separated from their mothers (8 weeks). |
| IL - Swap Meets - 50/24.1. Swap meets | This law requires that swap meet organizers provide the State with certain records about the presence and sale of animals. |
| IN - Breeder - Article 21. Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation | The laws set forth requirements for commercial breeders in Indiana. “Commercial dog breeder” means a person who (1) maintains more than nineteen (19) unaltered female dogs that are at least twelve (12) months of age; and (2) engages in the sale of dogs, resulting from the breeding of dogs, to a dog broker; a pet store; or the general public. Registration is required. Exemptions exist under the chapter. |
| IN - Breeders - Rule 1. Commercial Dog Breeder and Broker Registration | This set of Indiana rules provides the rules for licensing and registration of commercial dog brokers and breeders. |
| IN - Health - Article 17. Animal Health and Animal Products. Chapter 18. Crimes and Infractions | This set of Indiana laws covers diseased livestock and the sale of domestic animals. It also provides that a person responsible for livestock or poultry who knowingly or intentionally permits the livestock or poultry to run at large commits a Class B misdemeanor. Another provision states that a person may not import to or export from Indiana for the purpose of sale any dog under the age of eight (8) weeks unless the dog is transported with its dam. |
| IN - Pet Shop Rules - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PET SHOP RULES), 2016 | |
| Johnson v. Smith | Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt, the plaintiffs, challenge the constitutionality of the Kansas Pet Animal Act (the Act), which authorizes warrantless inspections of their homestead, where Mr. Johnson operates a business housing and training bird dogs. They argue that the Act violates the Fourth Amendment by permitting warrantless inspections and infringes on their constitutional right to travel by requiring premises to be made available for inspection within 30 minutes of an inspector’s arrival. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted the state’s motion to dismiss, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal. The court analyzed the Act, noting that it imposes varying inspection requirements and housing standards on different licensees, with all licensees subject to initial and routine inspections “at reasonable times.” Refusal to permit inspections constitutes grounds for license suspension or revocation. The court then examined whether the Act violates the Fourth Amendment, applying precedent from Burger and subsequent cases. It identified relevant factors for determining whether an industry is closely regulated, including the history of warrantless inspections, the extensiveness of the regulatory scheme, whether similar schemes exist in other jurisdictions, and the potential threat to public welfare if left unregulated. The parties disputed whether Mr. Johnson’s business qualifies as part of a closely regulated industry. The court credited the plaintiffs’ allegation that training kennels are distinct from other animal-related operations, noting that Kansas treats them as a separate category requiring specific licenses. The court concluded that the boarding or training-kennel industry does not qualify as closely regulated under the Fourth Amendment’s narrow exception for warrantless inspections. It emphasized the industry’s lack of a long tradition of regulation and found that the regulatory scheme does not clearly inform industry participants of unannounced warrantless inspections. Applying Patel, the court held that the regulatory scheme must satisfy three criteria for warrantless searches to be reasonable: a substantial government interest, necessity of warrantless inspections to further the regulatory scheme, and a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. The court found that dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim was improper, as the complaint did not establish that the closely regulated industry exception applies or that the Burger factors were satisfied. It also reversed the dismissal of the claim that the Act unconstitutionally conditions licensure on waiving Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court affirmed that the 30-minute inspection availability requirement does not violate the constitutional right to travel. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |